American foreign policy? UNIVERSALLY SHIT??? SINCE WHE-



it's sarcasm. the bit i was doing was sarcasm

here is a shocker: canadian foreign policy, try not to piss off the US

oh god what have I done?

Wake up, sheeple

A cruel irony that people invoke 9/11 to justify policies that are in the same vein as the ones that led to 9/11.

here is a shocker: what happens when you piss off the US.
pearl harbor --> hiroshima; WTC/Pentagon/Pennsylvania --> Operation Enduring Freedom.
and now you know why Canada tries not to piss off the US

Idiots who think the history of the world began at 8:46AM EST on 9/11/2001 are why the world is such a fucked up place.

So half a page into this link and... people are still stating that USA was "defeated" in Vietnam. God I hate people.

several pages in now... nothing remotely surprising...was their a point to this Tolstoy?

America's stated objective for sticking its nose into Vietnam was to prevent the country from falling to the communists. I don't know how anyone could say that didn't happen.

"was their a point to this Tolstoy? "

Yes. We've been hearing for fifteen years that those Evil Muzzies hate us for our freedoms and our Enlightened Western Christian Civilization, and their religion is just plain evil. It is a modern-day heresy to suggest otherwise. Yet "otherwise" - they hate us because of the misconduct of the American government in Muslim countries - is precisely the case. KSM's letter is a case in point - one of many - that is of course completely ignored by the teleprompter readers on TV. I am attempting in my own feeble way to call attention to it.

America's stated objective for sticking its nose into Vietnam was to prevent the country from falling to the communists. I don't know how anyone could say that didn't happen.

- that's a bit simplistic.The war went on ten years. USA was certainly not militarily defeated, they just chose to leave, because the world had changed in that time - the dominoes of communism had been stopped. South Vietnam was then irrelevant. Do you seriously think USA power and position was dented by withdrawing from vietnam? Please. It was simply the smart move. Even poor players on this site understand sometimes a province isn't worth keeping.


"Yes. We've been hearing for fifteen years that those Evil Muzzies hate us for our freedoms and our Enlightened Western Christian Civilization, and their religion is just plain evil."

- hmm yes, it's a lot of self-serving lies, with some truth in some cases. Hate is always political. If the muslims weren't living on top of a sea of oil the west would care less about them.
But I'm surprised you think any of this is news...check out Zbigniew Brzezinski's book 'The Grand Chessboard'. Published in 1997 it basically maps out the wests strategic ambitions in central asia. 9/11 was a false flag so that this foreign policy could be carried out. Literally the last 20 years of world history is defined by this plan. It's the USA gobbling up what's left of the world after it finally managed to bring Russia down.

That, or I'm a mad conspiracy theorist.... Cuckoo! Cuckoo! mad as a bicycle

@fiedler, not sure how you can defend the position that the US wasn't defeat in Vietnam. Withdrew troops, lost many, lost the South Vietnam government/all they were sent to prop up.

It is pretty clear. In another sense, the peace movement which spring up in opposiion to Vietnam was eventually successful, though they are never credited with a victory. They opposed the draft, and much less was said about the war before the draft was brought in, it became politically difficult at home to continue the war, so the powers that be gave up -never admitting defeat.

What is also not stated, at least publically, is the fact that later invasion have faced the same opposition at home. Even from the begining of the Iraq war, the peace movement was organised and popular. Ehat influence they have on pilicy is debatable...

What is also obvious is that the defenders of US policy will not admit there was any wrong doing - they will say Vietnam was badly prosecuted, that the war casualties made it unpopular, and that it was a good ifea badly executed. But never that the war was a bad immoral thing to do.

And yet the peace movement have said just that from the very begining. They don't oppose war because of casualties; they oppose it on moral grounds, and always have.

This is a far more nuanced and interesting conversation than the strategic level stuff (where the US clearly lost ground in Vietnam).

@Tolstoy,

The fact that anti-American sentiment in the middle east is high is well known. It has been the case since the 50s. It has not been helped by US policy in the region. By support given to Israel, by installing the Shah in Iran (who the 1979 revolution removed), by having troops in their holy land (whether invited by recognised* governments or not). And many more i am not expert enough to recall/explain/describe.

Whether any of those policies are justified depends on what position you take.

The hate of US foreign policy is understandable (i can't comment on whether it is just, i don't think it justifies the 9/11 attacks, but it does explain them). You call it a false flag, i find it far more reasonable to assume the September 11th attacks were a result of decades of hate - US policy driven hate.

The US government brought it on the people. No that the US government literally bombe themselves. And yes, it is hard to be anything but cynical when you see the resulting actions of that government. They took advantage of the situation to make the world a less safe place and further their own strategic goals.

9/11 changed US public opinion. But policy aims for oil(⛽️), allies, and influence, stsyed the same.

*not that they literally bombed, even. Please excuse any other typos.